Dear Editor,
OUR CASES BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT –
FACTS BEING MISREPRESENTED
In continuation of my Post this
afternoon on what happened in SC today, I wish to confirm that AFTER LIC's
request for adjournment was turned down with a direction to raise it when the
matters are taken up as per the Cause List, the Bench (Justice Dipak Misra) has
put LIC on Notice that its compliance of the interim directions to pay 20%
would be reviewed at that time. The Advocate representing Chandigarh
Petitioners who was present has not herself raised it today, as it was not the
issue before the Court. Can’t the issue be fresh in Judge’s mind as it was already
raised by us in the mention exercise on 23rd?
It was a double jeopardy for LIC -
its request for adjournment rejected and also told to report compliance on
20% payment.
In this background, what a skewed
reporting of even a favourable development? Why does Mr KML Asthana feel rattled
so much?
Who said a review on compliance of 20% payment order delays final hearing?
BTW, since when Mr KML Asthana became the champion of early Final Hearing? Was
he not on record from April 2014 onwards that the Final Hearing was
nowhere in sight in spite of SC Order on GNS IA to post all Appeals for
Final hearing? With his own absurd arguments like Notices not yet served on
LRs, Final Hearing is not for the CAs but it is on his IAs etc.,? They say
public memory is short; Is Mr KML Asthana's memory also that short? Today he
questions our efforts and asks 'don't they want final hearing?' For his
information our preparation for the Final hearing is much more serious and
professional if he has not cared to notice the Additional documents we filed
(served on his Counsel also) as listed in the 2nd Supplementary
Cause List for 29 Sept (Extract reproduced below)
REGULAR HEARING MATTERS
--
[
101 - 120 ITEM Nos. 101 - 120 SHOWN BEFORE THIS COURT IN THE SUPPLEMENTARY LIST
FOR 29.09.2015 ISSUED ON 26.09.2015 ]
NOTE:
I.A.NO.7 (APPLN.(S) FOR PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS) MAY BE TREATED
TO HAVE BEEN LISTED ALONGWITH C.A.NO.6995/2013.
Please accept that
our efforts to expose LIC’s contemptuous non-compliance on 20% payment are
paying dividends. It is my firm conviction that SC’s directions to pay 20% was
applicable to ALL LIC Pensioners but not on ‘pick & choose’ basis. That the
payment shall include up-gradation also. If on a review of LIC’s (non)
compliance so far, SC were to clarify its Order and direct LIC clearly on the
lines our IA No 6 of 2015 prayed, is it to be welcomed or should it cause any
heart-burn to anybody? In the event of no such directions coming and the issue
gets linked to final disposal by the SC itself, we are where we are now and
certainly NOT WORSE OFF. What is Mr KML’s problem? That his ‘strategic
inaction’ when action is called for, would get exposed?
If what to pay and whom to pay is not
clarified to our advantage now, how are we in a stronger position on those
things later?
PS: There is some chance (very remote
though) of the matters reaching on Tuesday (29th) itself. I will be
attending the proceedings on 29th & 30th Sept.